Clark v. Capital Income and Growth Fund, LLC, et al.

Filing 4

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/23/2015 DENYING 3 Motion for TRO. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BERNARD CLARK,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:15-cv-01171-KJM-DAD

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

CAPITAL INCOME AND GROWTH
FUND, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

On June 23, 2015, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for a temporary

19

restraining order (TRO). (ECF No. 3.) It appears plaintiff seeks an order staying the enforcement

20

of a writ of possession issued by the Toulumne County Superior Court in an unlawful detainer

21

action. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff does not provide a date of enforcement. “Under the Rooker–Feldman

22

doctrine, however, federal courts lack jurisdiction to review the propriety of state court rulings,

23

including a writ of possession rendered during the course of a state court unlawful detainer

24

proceeding.” Tucker v. Fed. Nat. Mortgage Ass’n, No. 13-01874, 2013 WL 5159730, at *1 (E.D.

25

Cal. Sept. 12, 2013) (collecting cases); see also Drawsand v. F.F. Properties, L.L.P., 866 F.

26

Supp. 2d 1110, 1123 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (“To the extent that [the plaintiff] is attempting to

27

challenge the adverse ruling in the [unlawful detainer] action, such claim is barred under the

28

Rooker–Feldman doctrine.”). Accordingly, the court DENIES plaintiff’s motion.
1

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 23, 2015.

3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2